Jump to content

Here we go AGAIN, now the F.A. are Anti Gun.


TIGHTCHOKE
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not sure about the legality of the £30 fine that the Football Association has slapped on this Club Owner who had the temerity to sue a picture of himself holding a gun whilst on Holiday in America.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg9e219w30o

 

SHOCKING abuse of their position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FA seem to have gone out of their way to find something which offends them. Quite happy to push rainbow armbands and laces, but object to "I love Jesus". Just who sets the FA's standards?

I notice "taking the knee" has thankfully ceased. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Not sure about the legality of the £30 fine that the Football Association has slapped on this Club Owner who had the temerity to sue a picture of himself holding a gun whilst on Holiday in America.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg9e219w30o

 

SHOCKING abuse of their position.

isnt there a coloured footballer with an AK47 tatooed on his leg ?................they havnt done anything about that !!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ditchman said:

isnt there a coloured footballer with an AK47 tatooed on his leg ?................they havnt done anything about that !!!!

That's Raheem Stirling 😉 It was 'brought up' but has since been forgotten,,,,,,,, 🥱

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bigbob said:

Whats it got to do with the F A he was on holiday second word would be Off 

It's the photo he chose to use in a football publication. That's really cringy. 

 

I have no love for the FA, their promotion of right think and their persecution of those who don't kowtow to their preferred ideology, but you'd be a bit of a **** to put that kind of photo in a non-shooting publication. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ehb102 said:

It's the photo he chose to use in a football publication. That's really cringy. 

 

I have no love for the FA, their promotion of right think and their persecution of those who don't kowtow to their preferred ideology, but you'd be a bit of a **** to put that kind of photo in a non-shooting publication. 

Still none of the FA’s business. Cringy or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should bombard the FA with emails, comparing their attitudes towards someone posting a photo of something the people of that country enjoy as a human right during a foreign holiday trip, whilst questioning their ( the FA’s ) morals of receiving funding from foreign countries which have prehistoric attitudes towards human rights, women and homosexuality. 
I’ll fire mine off as soon as I find time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scully said:

Perhaps we should bombard the FA with emails, comparing their attitudes towards someone posting a photo of something the people of that country enjoy as a human right during a foreign holiday trip, whilst questioning their ( the FA’s ) morals of receiving funding from foreign countries which have prehistoric attitudes towards human rights, women and homosexuality. 
I’ll fire mine off as soon as I find time. 

Don't forget to mention their inclusion of men in women's sports and the banning of women who even question this. 

 

15 hours ago, Genghis said:

Still none of the FA’s business. Cringy or not.

If you put an organisation's stamp on anything it becomes their business. You don't do questionable things on company time or as a representative of the organisation, even if you are a volunteer. Common sense and well publicised now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ehb102 said:

If you put an organisation's stamp on anything it becomes their business. You don't do questionable things on company time or as a representative of the organisation, even if you are a volunteer. Common sense and well publicised now. 

He didn’t engage in questionable things, he participated in a legal activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, ehb102 said:

Don't forget to mention their inclusion of men in women's sports and the banning of women who even question this. 

 

If you put an organisation's stamp on anything it becomes their business. You don't do questionable things on company time or as a representative of the organisation, even if you are a volunteer. Common sense and well publicised now. 

I won’t. 
 

But why was it ‘questionable’? 
Edit: Gengis beat me to it. 

Edited by Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

Well here's the new Patron of the FA announced recently. Are they going to fine him £30 as well?

PW.jpg

I wonder what maker of gun he uses.?  Holland, Purdy, Boss or Baikal. ? 🙂  AND I wonder where Harry's guns went to and who got his peg in the drive.  absolute shame spaniel left on peg. Still I expect that Kate went to get the spaniel ,give it a kind word and a stroke.  What a clown that boy was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Minky said:

I wonder what maker of gun he uses.?  Holland, Purdy, Boss or Baikal. ? 

Boss? "Boss guns, bloody lovely but too bloody expensive" so said George V. I'd guess Purdey. Harry's stalking rifle that was listed as sold, or for sale, on the internet was a Holland in .243". Which rather is a waste of a Mauser 98 action IMHO. I did nearly, once, buy a .240 Apex (or rather my mother offered to buy it for me) but settled instead for a Pafrker-Hale M81 Classic in .270 WCF. I think a better use of her money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Boss? "Boss guns, bloody lovely but too bloody expensive" so said George V. I'd guess Purdey. Harry's stalking rifle that was listed as sold, or for sale, on the internet was a Holland in .243". Which rather is a waste of a Mauser 98 action IMHO. I did nearly, once, buy a .240 Apex (or rather my mother offered to buy it for me) but settled instead for a Pafrker-Hale M81 Classic in .270 WCF. I think a better use of her money.

A friend of mine has a Boss 12 sbs that was made for a Gentleman back before the first world war.  The Gentleman went off to do his bit but got killed.!  The family kept the gun and used to send it in to Boss to have it checked out and serviced even though it was never used.  He always wanted a Boss and when this one came available he got it. I'm not sure what it took to get it.  There was talk of 32K but there was also talk that he traded a Holland Royal made in 1880 something for Ralph Payne Galwey and a Charles Lancaster 12 sle which was made on a 16 action.  All guns were exceptional in all ways mechanical perfection and beauty in wood and engraving.   All I can say about the Boss is WOW, stunning in every way a pleasure to look at and handle.  Not exactly in the same class is the Parker Hale .270 which I have as you have. Although i really love and appreciate the  quality of Purdey, Holland and the like, to me they are a tool. I don't think that the deer know the difference between my PH .270 and my Mamlicher Luxus stutzen 243 Win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Minky said:

All I can say about the Boss is WOW, stunning in every way a pleasure to look at and handle.

I always thought them the best of the London makers from having read the poem "The Battle of the Guns" in Purdey's book "The Shotgun". Mine was made in 1922 for Captain S A Watt who lived in Leicestershire at one time. But nice as it was I have a French Fusil Robust Model 28E made in the same 1920's period that actually self opens better than the Boss merely easy opens. So yes it was a better tool and that, to me, was all the Boss ever was. The Manufrance does it better and cost but £240. So the Boss was sold a couple of years back. But for quality they win over any Purdey any day. IMHO anyway.

Edited by enfieldspares
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, mmamonster said:

He needs to get a gun company to sponsor his team now so it's on every football top in his club.

Indeed. I’d love to see the response. 
I’ve mentioned before while on a trip to Venice we were sat outside a restaurant having a mid day coffee when about 30 primary school kids traipsed past, obviously on a trip. Nothing strange about that, but each kid wore a baseball cap with ‘Perazzi’ emblazoned across the front. 
I was chuffed to see it but equally sad that it wouldn’t be allowed in our PC and priority muddled country. 
Imagine the outcry if that happened here. 
There’s something seriously wrong and disturbing about the direction we are heading in this country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Scully said:

Indeed. I’d love to see the response. 
I’ve mentioned before while on a trip to Venice we were sat outside a restaurant having a mid day coffee when about 30 primary school kids traipsed past, obviously on a trip. Nothing strange about that, but each kid wore a baseball cap with ‘Perazzi’ emblazoned across the front. 
I was chuffed to see it but equally sad that it wouldn’t be allowed in our PC and priority muddled country. 
Imagine the outcry if that happened here. 
There’s something seriously wrong and disturbing about the direction we are heading in this country. 

Sadly now, I'm not sure the priorities are muddled, it's all by design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...